ABSTRACT
This chapter aims to establish the plausibility of understanding justice as one fundamental value among many. It explains that pluralists think justice is distinct from all-things-considered principles because the all-things-considered optimality of those principles requires deviating somewhat from distributive fairness. The chapter addresses an important challenge to the claim that justice is composed of a single value. It argues that the dispute between pluralists and contextualists over justice's narrowness is more than verbal because it reflects an underlying theoretical disagreement over the way fairness should be interpreted. The chapter analyzes the Rawlsian case for adopting a procedural understanding of fairness. Finally, it argues that the rationale for rejecting a substantive interpretation of fairness in favor of a procedural interpretation, when consistently applied to the selection of procedural devices, requires us to employ substantive fairness at the procedural level.
